SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025
Which exercise modality is most effective for improving cardiac function in patients with myocardial infarction? A network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of different exercise modalities on cardiac function in patients with myocardial infarction (MI), providing evidence-based recommendations for optimal cardiac rehabilitation programming. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of seven Chinese and English databases, including CNKI and Web of Science, to identify eligible studies. A network meta-analysis based on the frequency framework was performed using STATA 14.0. Results: A total of 69 studies involving 5,044 participants were included. Compared to the control group, all exercise interventions significantly improved 6-minute walk test (6MWT) scores in MI patients, with mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) ranging from 57.61 (34.87, 80.36) for aerobic exercise (AE) to 144.38 (110.78, 177.98) for resistance exercise (RE). All modalities enhanced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), with MDs (95% CI) from 4.75 (3.42, 6.09) for AE to 8.75 (5.72, 11.77) for RE. Except for AE, all interventions reduced left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), with MDs (95% CI) from -4.01 (-6.42, -1.59) for multi-component exercise training (MCET) to -6.40 (-9.24, -3.56) for RE. All exercises improved left ventricular end-systolic diameter (LVESD), with MDs (95% CI) from -1.89 (-3.27, -0.51) for AE to -7.33 (-9.62, -5.03) for RE. RE consistently showed a high probability of relatively high efficacy rankings across outcomes (SUCRA: 93.2-99.8). Conclusion: RE appeared to have a high probability of being a highly effective single modality for improving post-MI cardiac function and remodeling. MCET and mind-body training also offer notable advantages, particularly in reducing ventricular size. Ultimately, rehabilitation programs should be tailored by considering the modality-specific benefits, patient's clinical profile, and functional capacity to optimize outcomes. Systematic Review Registration: https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2024-11-0016/, identifier INPLASY2024110016.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.